Publication: Revisiting detachment techniques in human-biting ticks
dc.contributor.coauthor | Belli, Asli Akin | |
dc.contributor.coauthor | Dervis, Emine | |
dc.contributor.coauthor | Kar, Sirri | |
dc.contributor.coauthor | Gargili, Aysen | |
dc.contributor.department | School of Medicine | |
dc.contributor.kuauthor | Ergönül, Önder | |
dc.contributor.schoolcollegeinstitute | SCHOOL OF MEDICINE | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-11-09T23:48:01Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2016 | |
dc.description.abstract | Background: Early and complete removal of ticks using the right technique is important to reduce tick-transmitted diseases. Several chemical and mechanical detachment techniques have been described previously. Objective: We aimed to compare the performance of 4 tick-detachment techniques that are widely used in human beings and to determine the optimal method from these techniques. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on 160 patients between April and June 2010. Patients with reported tick bite were reviewed retrospectively and divided into the following 4 groups according to the tick-detachment technique used: card detachment, lassoing, freezing, and tweezers. Performance of each technique was evaluated according to the number of fully detached, nondetached, and crushed ticks and the duration of application. Results: of the 160 tick-bite cases assessed, we found the following efficacy rates: 82.5% (33/40), technique using tweezers; 47.5% (19/40), lassoing technique; 7.5% (3/40), card detachment; and 0% (0/40), freezing technique. The efficacy rate of the technique using tweezers was significantly higher than that of the other 3 techniques (P < .05). Limitations: This was a relatively small sample size and not designed as a randomized clinical trial. Conclusion: Tick detachment using tweezers, performed in an appropriate manner, is the easiest and most effective technique. | |
dc.description.indexedby | WOS | |
dc.description.indexedby | Scopus | |
dc.description.indexedby | PubMed | |
dc.description.issue | 2 | |
dc.description.openaccess | NO | |
dc.description.publisherscope | International | |
dc.description.sponsoredbyTubitakEu | N/A | |
dc.description.volume | 75 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1016/j.jaad.2016.01.032 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 0190-9622 | |
dc.identifier.quartile | Q1 | |
dc.identifier.scopus | 2-s2.0-84959449710 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2016.01.032 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14288/14222 | |
dc.identifier.wos | 380748300034 | |
dc.keywords | Freezing | |
dc.keywords | Parasite-host relations | |
dc.keywords | Techniques | |
dc.keywords | Tick bites | |
dc.keywords | Tick infestations | |
dc.keywords | Tweezers | |
dc.keywords | Removal | |
dc.keywords | Transmission | |
dc.keywords | Attachment | |
dc.keywords | Duration | |
dc.language.iso | eng | |
dc.publisher | Elsevier | |
dc.relation.ispartof | Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology | |
dc.subject | Dermatology | |
dc.title | Revisiting detachment techniques in human-biting ticks | |
dc.type | Journal Article | |
dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
local.contributor.kuauthor | Ergönül, Mehmet Önder | |
local.publication.orgunit1 | SCHOOL OF MEDICINE | |
local.publication.orgunit2 | School of Medicine | |
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication | d02929e1-2a70-44f0-ae17-7819f587bedd | |
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscovery | d02929e1-2a70-44f0-ae17-7819f587bedd | |
relation.isParentOrgUnitOfPublication | 17f2dc8e-6e54-4fa8-b5e0-d6415123a93e | |
relation.isParentOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscovery | 17f2dc8e-6e54-4fa8-b5e0-d6415123a93e |